Feminist approach to foreign policy - interview findings: final report

Findings from Interviews

This chapter will provide an overview of key themes identified across the seven interviews.

Policy Focus and Priorities

When asked about the core priorities of an FFP, participants discussed peace, justice, equality, wellbeing, and environmental or planetary safety. One participant expressed their desire to see meaningful participation in economic, social and political decision-making extended to those usually excluded from decision-making processes. Another participant called for broader conversations about reforming the current multilateral system and addressing its democratic deficits and power imbalances so that we can create a space where countries can speak equitably.

Key policy areas discussed by participants in relation to FFP included health, international development, migration, justice, climate, peace and security, economy, and trade.

The majority of participants argued the focus of an FFP should go beyond merely women and girls by focusing on marginalised groups more generally. In relation to this, three participants drew attention to feminist analysis's focus on power dynamics and the transformation of structures that drive inequality. As one put it, feminist analysis is different than gender analysis in that it looks at power and asks who is oppressed – while this is often women and girls, it is not only them. Another participant cautioned that focusing on women and girls also often leads to limiting the focus on issues 'traditionally' viewed as gendered (e.g. discrimination and inheritance laws, health, sexuality) while others (e.g. mining, extractive industries, fossil fuels) are often not viewed in relation to women and girls.

Intersectionality

Participants regarded intersectionality^[2] to be an important part of FFP, especially as it allows different forms of marginalisation and layers of oppression to be accounted for.

Using an intersectional approach, one participant explained, broadens the focus of FFP and brings into view people who might have otherwise been missed by the policy.

Three participants emphasised the importance of structural, institutional or systemic change in relation to intersectionality – as one of them put it, it is important to go beyond seeing intersectionality merely at the individual level (i.e. how an individual is situated at the axes of oppression) and look at how structures driving inequality also intersect (e.g. how militarism and capitalism drive violence and ecological breakdown). Another participant noted that through institutional reform justice can be brought about for people who experience multiple forms of discrimination.

Participants nonetheless noted the difficulties in operationalising intersectionality due to its complexity. Further, one participant noted that it is crucial to understand the local context and how different forms of oppression operate in those societies governments and other actors engage with (e.g. regional, caste, linguistic, ethnic differences).

Policy Development and Engagement

Participants emphasised the importance of collaboration, participation and representation in policy development. They noted that feminist movements, feminist civil society, as well as diverse social movements operating at different levels (grassroots and above), should be brought to the table. One participant noted governments should involve as many different communities and organisations as possible to ensure intersectionality is present. Multiple participants flagged the importance of directly engaging with those affected by the policy – this helps governments identify the most appropriate policy tools as well as people's and communities' needs. Multiple participants flagged the importance of access to translation services and offering compensation to contributors for their time as this will open doors for those whom they were closed before.

Coherence between domestic and international policy was seen as key by participants, and where these did not align was seen as hypocritical. They noted that there are issues that states, who have adopted an FFP, are not addressing on the domestic front. At the same time, these states are making such issues the focus of their international work (e.g. violence against women and girls). As one participant put it, 'are you walking your talk?'. Four participants also noted the incompatibility of nuclear arms and/or arms trade with FFP. Internal policy coherence was also brought up – for one participant a key issue was that government policies between departments are not in sync or are at odds with each other, and they are not complementing each other. In practice, they had seen examples of trade and development aid policies undermining each other.

Two participants also noted the importance of considering and clarifying the meaning of the concept of feminism itself – it is important to understand what feminism means to the different people being engaged with during policy development, and to clarify how feminism is defined within the policy.

Policy Tools

As discussed previously, participants emphasised the importance of collaboration – both internally between government departments, as well as externally with organisations and movements, and with those on the ground who are impacted by the policies.

The importance of feedback loops was highlighted by two participants. On the one hand this ensures continued, rather than one-off, engagement with those impacted by the policy, and on the other it helps the government to ascertain that implementation is working.

Participants noted that while representation is important, it is not enough. Rather than merely adding women (or marginalised groups generally) into existing institutions and structures, one participant argued we need to consider how structures that drive inequality, war, and ecological harm could be transformed. As one participant put it: 'don't call it feminism if it does not change anything'. However, another participant noted that hierarchical structures of power (such as patriarchy) that we are deeply embedded in will continue to exist and, therefore, it is through representation and participation that space can be created for constructive engagement. Finally, one participant highlighted 'non-reformist reform' as an option for more gradual change whereby system transformation remains as the ultimate goal but at the same time policies are developed that are actionable in the here and now.

Participants flagged the importance of institutional reform internally and the importance of self-reflection within government. One participant noted that ownership and buy-in are important for implementation in order to get change in motion in different teams. A degree of autonomy is required here, the participant noted, in order for teams and department to work out what FFP means for them in practice. Part of this governmental self-reflection, two participants argued, is acknowledging and reflecting on the power a government has, how power imbalance plays out in the spaces it operates in, and how power can be devolved to people on the ground.

Participants also suggested the following tools that the Scottish Government could use in its feminist approach to foreign policy work: lobbying or influencing nationally and within the UK on particular issues (e.g. global economic transformation); using influence and advocacy in multilateral coalitions and conversations; divesting from harmful activities; legislation; and building trust and communication with governments.

Challenges

A key challenge identified in relation to FFP was perceptions around feminism itself. Participants noted that feminism can be a challenging word that encounters resistance either due to feminism's challenge to existing structures or because it is seen as 'too right-on'. Participants wondered if more could be achieved without explicitly using the feminist label. One interviewee noted that while in some contexts the word 'feminism' can help, in others it may close doors. Another interviewee also noted this in relation to different national or local contexts – that is, there may be more discomfort around speaking of feminism in some places than others.

Relatedly, participants noted that there are different strands of feminism – so feminism is not one homogenous entity – and one participant cautioned that there is a risk of having a too narrow understanding of feminism. Further, a participant remarked there are misunderstandings around what feminism in relation to foreign policy means. Some will view it as being 'gentler' and it is therefore perceived as more 'wishy washy' or not as a serious approach.

Interviewees noted that there are various vested interests that are not necessarily compatible with FFP principles. As one participant noted, there may therefore be pushback to systemic change.

Another key challenge identified by participants was resourcing. This was seen in terms of struggling to secure sufficient resourcing for the agenda on the hand, and 'throwing money at an issue without resolving it' on the other.

Participants flagged tensions and power imbalances in inter-state and trans-national engagements around FFP. Specifically, one participant said there is an underlying assumption by western states regarding how gender equality should be done. Thus, they explained, a hierarchy is created where normative whiteness and elite voices are privileged in terms of FFP, and regarding who claims expertise and resources in relation to FFP. Rather, the participant notes, FFP should be approached on a more equal footing.

Finally, considering Scotland specifically, six participants mentioned the current constitutional settlement as a key challenge for Scotland in terms of devolved and reserved issues.

Monitoring and Evaluation

Participants noted the importance of monitoring and evaluation (M&E) in terms of accountability, transparency, and having checks and balances in place regarding implementation. With this in mind, one participant emphasised the importance of having an independent or external party conduct the evaluation. One participant noted that having an annual publication would be 'huge'.

As discussed in relation to policy development and implementation, the active participation of those who are impacted by FFP is also critical at the M&E stage. Participants also noted the importance of including the civil society and other stakeholders in M&E conversations.

Looking internally, two participants advised that the Scottish Government should ensure internal training on M&E is available on the one hand, and that structures for responsibility over M&E are in place on the other.

Participants emphasised the importance of having measurable commitments, smart goals, as well as clear timelines and roles and responsibilities. One participant cautioned that M&E can lead to the 'watering down' of more radical change as systems of measurement often lead to unambitious goals. Thus, the participant notes we need to come up with tools that do not make our goals more limited, and points out that feminist thinkers have focused on working through issues like how to measure and evaluate women's empowerment, for example. Another participant cautioned against merely adopting existing measurements; rather, Scotland should consider where its closest relationships are, and what its feminist approach to foreign policy means with regard to the countries Scotland engages with. Thus, Scotland needs to develop a criteria for assessment that is based on Scotland's priorities.

Next Steps

Please see the background note setting the scene for the next stage of stakeholder engagement.